User:Emily/Self-Evaluation: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
====Introduction==== | ====Introduction==== | ||
The mechansim of moving-image production has been proliferated | The mechansim of moving-image production has been proliferated. From classical cinematic languge to computational processing, the theories and tools applied to realise/fulfil the transition from one state to another have been changed. If we consider the editing as syntax of the language of cinema, then the syntax has been enlarged hugely, from the thoery of continuity and montage to intensifed continuity, chaos cinema and post-continuity. In parallel with it, the theme of digital cinema faded away from computer modeling, simulating reality, to visualizing codes of complex digital structure. As Deleuze put, "Cinema does not give us an image to which movemnt is added, it immediately gives us a movement-image"(Deleuze, Movement-Image 2). The movment is automatic, and autonomous. | ||
My practice will focus on examine those ''transition'' in moving-image production, and try to visualize/represent the ''transition'' by reverse its process. The ''automatic movement'' in classical cinema is generally visible apllying camera movement together with cuts and assembly. If considering computation and algorithm generated moving-images like slice and morphing techiques applied in it, the ''transition'' cannot be perceive easily for human and it is also complicated for spectators to reasoning how and why they see it. "However the breakdown of logical ans senso-motorial(action-reaction) connections between images does not mean that there aren't any connections any more but give rise to new kinds of connections."(Huygens,I. Image[&]Narrative[e-journal], 18(2007). | |||
<!-- | |||
Theorists were enthusiastic on the link between cinema and thinking. At early time, the theorists(Dziga Vertov, the kino-eye theory) refer to the fact that the camera produces thinking autonomoously and independently from a human subject. Latr on, according to Deleuze, the machinic being defined by its autonomous and automatic nature. Thinking for Deleuze is autonomous. The ideal of a concept for Deleuze is not a representation(which is static) but an act of becoming, and auto-movemnt of thought.(Huygens,I. Image[&]Narrative[e-journal], 18(2007) The automatic movement is capable of 'producing a shock to thought, communicating vibrations to the cortex, touching the nervous and cerebral sustem directly'(Deleuze, Image-Temps 156). | |||
--> | |||
====Relation to previous practice==== | ====Relation to previous practice==== | ||
Revision as of 14:44, 23 September 2015
From visible "cut" to invisibile "cut" (Working Title)
Introduction
The mechansim of moving-image production has been proliferated. From classical cinematic languge to computational processing, the theories and tools applied to realise/fulfil the transition from one state to another have been changed. If we consider the editing as syntax of the language of cinema, then the syntax has been enlarged hugely, from the thoery of continuity and montage to intensifed continuity, chaos cinema and post-continuity. In parallel with it, the theme of digital cinema faded away from computer modeling, simulating reality, to visualizing codes of complex digital structure. As Deleuze put, "Cinema does not give us an image to which movemnt is added, it immediately gives us a movement-image"(Deleuze, Movement-Image 2). The movment is automatic, and autonomous.
My practice will focus on examine those transition in moving-image production, and try to visualize/represent the transition by reverse its process. The automatic movement in classical cinema is generally visible apllying camera movement together with cuts and assembly. If considering computation and algorithm generated moving-images like slice and morphing techiques applied in it, the transition cannot be perceive easily for human and it is also complicated for spectators to reasoning how and why they see it. "However the breakdown of logical ans senso-motorial(action-reaction) connections between images does not mean that there aren't any connections any more but give rise to new kinds of connections."(Huygens,I. Image[&]Narrative[e-journal], 18(2007).
Relation to previous practice
In the last academic year, I researched mainly on the methods of recombination/permutation/cut-up. Firstly being used in literature then in video works. André Breton, Tristan Tzara, William Burroughs, Brion Gysin, are main figures I looked at.
Time and space are two main important dimensions of the moving image that I am concerning most in my works. Even the cut-up techniques used in create literature works involve spacial imagination. Like for example fold-in technique, taking two sheets of linear text (with the same linespacing), folding each sheet in half vertically and combining with the other, then reading across the resulting page. Gysin created digital poetry I am that I am. In his 1960 essay entitled Cut-Ups Self-Explained, he put forwards "The permutated poems set the words spinning off on their own; echoing out as the words of a potent phrase are permutated into an expanding ripple of meanings which they did not seem to be capable of when they were struck into that phrase. The poets are supposed to liberate the words – not to chain them in phrases. Who told poets they were supposed to think? Poets are meant to sing and to make words sing."
Relation to a larger context
Collecting Refference
movement(camera)+editing(cut+assembling) --> using custom program to --> the process of transition representd as moving-image(e.g. Slice by George Legrady; morphing by lev manovich)